memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews
Reconfirmations without objections Xindi incident The Xindi incident or Xindi crisis was a series of events lasting nearly a year, from March 2153 to February 2154, involving the Enterprise NX-01's attempt to save Earth from destruction by the Xindi. It was a major turning point in the Temporal Cold War, and the incident also helped pave the way for the creation of the Coalition of Planets, a precursor to the Federation. In March of 2153, acting on false intelligence provided by the Sphere Builders, the Xindi launched a surprise attack on Earth. The Xindi, who had been without a homeworld since the 2030s, had been informed by their protectors that, in the 26th century, Humanity was going to destroy their new homeworld. Because of this, the Xindi-Primate scientist (and Xindi Council member) Degra had been working for several years on a superweapon capable of destroying Earth. ---- This FA has one of the most questionable histories of all the articles ever considered. Nominated in the same edit it was created, this article has been renamed several times, including during the nomination, and when opposed it was "renominated" in the same edit the original nomination was removed (See the FA history for links and such). That said, I think it's pretty much up to snuff by today's standards. - 22:33, December 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'. - 22:33, December 27, 2011 (UTC) :Given its shaky FA history, can we agree to give this the "full nomination" treatment of needing 5 support vote from the start? I'm sure I could find something sensible to oppose this article for (like the strange article structure made apparent by the total lack of subsections), but I think it would be a good sign if this was handled that way without being forced by an oppose vote. -- Cid Highwind 12:59, December 28, 2011 (UTC) I don't have a problem with more votes being required for this one as long as this isn't used as a precedent for other problematic reconfirmations, since this one is a bit more "problematic" than the others. That said, I'm not sure how moving the current sections down a header level would make the article better, which is the first thing I think of when you mention the lack of subsections. - 16:54, December 28, 2011 (UTC) ::I think it could benefit from some more internal links. --Defiant 21:59, December 30, 2011 (UTC) :I'm not suggesting to simply "move down one level" some of the headers. What I had in mind is the idea that a "natural" article structure would probably be more nested than what we currently have (twelve sections of equal level, thus supposedly of equal importance and equal "distance" from each other). For example, the first three sections are about "pre-Expanse" stuff, so maybe it would be a good idea to make those subsections under a new level-2 header. Maybe it would make sense to split the "in-Expanse" stuff into two major sections, one about the early needle-in-a-haystack search and one about the later direct dealings with the Xindi. Maybe we find out that some of the stuff (like, for example, the Suliban kidnapping Archer and telling him stuff) isn't even part of the "Xindi incident" itself (so should be removed from the article, or the article renamed). -- Cid Highwind 23:46, December 30, 2011 (UTC) I'm open to reworking the structure, but I think details like the Suliban kidnapping are helpful in providing context, since that's where the info about why and who attacked Earth comes from. As for the name, I think "incident" was used more than "crisis", or at least was used after the fact, which I guess is why "incident" is used while something like "crisis" seems like the better word to encompass the all the events. Based on the comment on the articles talk page though, that should be looked into. - 02:08, December 31, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah, "Xindi incident" was indeed used more often than "Xindi crisis" (with the former being referenced in both and , whereas the latter is used only in ). All these terms are used after-the-fact, though – during the course of season 4. --Defiant 02:53, December 31, 2011 (UTC) I've reworked the structure by generally removing most of the headers between content I felt was generally similar. Sub sections could be reintroduced as needed, though I don't think we need as many sections as we started out with. - 15:17, January 4, 2012 (UTC) Anymore input? - 14:41, January 7, 2012 (UTC) *'Support'. It seems a good summary to me and I think the above mentioned concerns have been addressed. --31dot 01:37, January 8, 2012 (UTC) Elizabeth Cutler :Blurb will be installed Tuesday ;) ---- I'm "adopting" this one from the list of problematic FA on the talk page. I have no current opinion about the article - other than the fact that it might be a little too short for nowadays standards and that its FA status might have had to do with the early demise of the actress at the time. -- Cid Highwind 13:12, December 28, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'. Short isn't a reason to remove FA status as long as the article meets the criteria, and I don't think why it was nominated matters all that much either in that case, though you're probably right in that regard Cid. In case anyone wants to take a look at the reasoning for the problematic listing, it can be found here, along with the original nomination. Also, we do already have a blurb for this one. ;) - 16:54, December 28, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' for very much the same reasons Duke stated. I like the easy readability of a "tertiary" semi-regular and frankly do not care why it was nominated as a FA...It is all there as far as I can discern, so for that matter I cast my vote...The one ,very minor thing, I've problem with is the placement of the Insignia thumb, c'mon that can be placed better--Sennim 18:48, January 6, 2012 (UTC) *'Oppose. The bg info seems currently quite lacking. I do have an issue of ''Star Trek: Communicator in which Kellie Waymire discusses the role, so I'll try to add info from that soon(ish!). --Defiant 01:11, January 7, 2012 (UTC) :Yeah, take your time. Thanks to your "oppose", this is now in need of a full treatment, anyway - so we'll just remove its FA status if "soonish" isn't fast enough. -- Cid Highwind 10:39, January 7, 2012 (UTC) ::Is that meant to be sarcastic?! I'm not the only one with a computer, etc., and the Communicator magazine is publicly available! --Defiant 14:22, January 7, 2012 (UTC) :::Where is it publicly available for free? - 14:37, January 7, 2012 (UTC) ::Is that meant to be a rhetorical question? --Defiant 14:43, January 7, 2012 (UTC) :::No, it's not. I'm saying provide a link if it is, if it isn't, not everyone is going to have that information, and since it's out of print I don't know where one could go get it. Simply asking for time to add that information, which people use to do quite a lot once, is far better than opposing an article over missing information only you and a few others have access to, especially if you're not sure of the content, plan to add it shortly (or don't plan to add it at all yourself), and don't want to spend the time polling other users to provided the other three support votes now needed. - 14:53, January 7, 2012 (UTC) ::In all honesty, you make very little sense to me. Anyways, I've now added the info. The oppose was only ever temporary; sorry if I didn't completely spell that out! I'm happy to remove the momentary oppose now which, as you can see from the above, I have done. --Defiant 15:29, January 7, 2012 (UTC) :::Have you even read the reconfirmation policy? Do you understand that YOU have complicated this process for something as small as a few hours? You haven't even answered my question, so I'm just going to assume that the Communicator isn't publicly available, and that you have no idea what you've done. - 23:29, January 7, 2012 (UTC) :And all that for so little gain, too. I'm not sure how having a ton of quotes by the actress, basically stating something along the lines of "Nobody knew where this character was going to go - not me, and surely not the writers." is supposed to make the article better, or more complete for that matter. I'm not even sure all of that really belongs there instead of, for example, the article about Kellie Waymire herself. -- Cid Highwind 23:51, January 7, 2012 (UTC) ::I'm not really interested in your tantrums, guys. It's obviously too hard for you to face the truth – that I've improved the article, by making the bg info somewhat more substantial than just a few lines. I have indeed read through the reconfirmation policy, and I find nothing that vetoes what I've done. If there were, it'd probably be the policy at fault, since a policy that doesn't allow for improvements and further developments where they are warranted likely wouldn't be a very good policy! --Defiant 02:13, January 8, 2012 (UTC) :::This isn't a tantrum, this is you clearly not understanding the policy or what is being said, so I hope this article is able to find another three support votes now that you felt the need to "improve" it by making it harder to reconfirm for no fraking reason, and can't even be bothered to support it yourself. - 02:20, January 8, 2012 (UTC) ::Calm down; it's only a lame Star Trek site! ;) You're also assuming a lot; I have no problem with adding a support vote for this article. In fact, I thought I did that earlier, but I guess I forgot. And I'm willing to do anything I can to help find the required 2 other support votes. But further developing an article and raising its quality should never be frowned down upon; that's just silliness. It shouldn't be about just getting the article through the reconfirmation process ASAP, but finding ways to improve the articles and make them as good as possible, damn the consequences! --Defiant 02:38, January 8, 2012 (UTC) ::::Back on topic: I have a few concerns about the article. First, as Cid alluded to, some of the quotes added are more appropriate to Kellie Waymire rather than here. In particular, I suggest that everything in the first paragraph of bg info should be moved there. However, I think the other two paragraphs are fine as they are relevant to the character. ::::Second, the sentence "Cutler wore a rank insignia of a crewman (first class) on her uniform." at the end of "Professional life" doesn't really connect to the rest of the article. It's also a weird way to state that she had that rank. Somewhere towards the beginning of the article it should simply state that Cutler's rank was Crewman (first class). The accompanying picture should then be ditched, since this is an article about Cutler, not "Crewman (first class)". Other than that, I think this is a pretty solid article on a minor character, and I will support this if these two concerns are addressed.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 02:53, January 8, 2012 (UTC) ::Indeed, I don't think it'll be as hard to pass this through the reconfirm process than some have made out. --Defiant 03:03, January 8, 2012 (UTC) :::You'll excuse me if I'm a little upset with the fact we have nearly 140 articles to go though and the only means of expediting that process was removed for the sake of less than 12 hours of "breathing room" that wasn't even needed. Opposing an article on those grounds in unconstructive, since as I've said simply asking for the time would have sufficed. If that needs to spelled out in the policy, it can be, but I would have expected long time users to keep the big picture in mind and not require an excessive amount of instruction. If Defaint is so ready to better these articles, he can start start a reconfirmation himself. It be nice if we could all work on the overall solution as well as the articles themselves. I'm not "frowning upon" why you did it, I'm frowning upon how you did it. :::As for removing the section and moving the rank info, I agree. - 05:35, January 8, 2012 (UTC) Reconfirmations with objections Early reconfirmations